Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

So is the rest of the world. I know what you mean, though. They have sentience, and that makes them different. They have an animal spirit which is not really of this world. How would you characterize your relationship with me? Are you attached to me? Or would characterize it in a different way? I'm your bff, that's all I know.

I love both you and the cats but in a different way since animals are different from humans.

That's good. This growth in spirituality will be especially helpful in the next world. You don't feel good at all while going through those tests, of course. It depends on the person whether they welcome the tests. Abdu'l-Baha welcomed His tests, but who can be 'Abdu'l-Baha?

I hate being compared to Abdu'l-Baha and it is totally unfair to compare any human to him, or to expect us to be like him. It is a setup for guilt and failure. His father was a Manifestation of God so he was unlike any man, he was God's Mystery. He knew when His father died where he was going... We don't know where anyone is going, we can only believe on faith. Do you understand the difference?

Nonetheless I would welcome any tests that come upon me in service to the Cause of God, but that is in no way the same as my husband dying. As I recall Shoghi Effendi grieved the loss of Abdu'l-Baha for a long time, do you think he welcomed that loss?

 

[Trailblazer]

I was going to say that the Revelation of Muhammad abrogated the Dispensation of Jesus. I wonder what the Guardian meant when he said "all the Dispensations". He chose his words carefully. Good quote.

The Revelation of Muhammad did abrogate the Dispensation of Jesus.

Please note what the Guardian said:
“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it,”
God Passes By, p. 100

The Revelation of Jesus has thus been abrogated since about 632 AD.

 

[CG Didymus]

Abrogation, that is a problem with Abrahamic relgions. Not like in Hinduism where the message is eternal and the only requirement is to be humane.

More thoughts on "abrogation". Most all the religions were isolated from each other. What laws did Moses "abrogate" from the other religions in the world? Especially from the previous "manifestations" of Judaism like Abraham? Then did Zoroaster abrogate all the dispensations that came before him? Then did Buddha? Anyway... here's some interesting dates...
Moses flourished 14th–13th century bce
Krishna was born at midnight of 17/18 June 3229 BCE (gregorian calendar)
Zoroaster sometime between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE.
Buddha probably lived from about 450 BC to 370 BC.

So, as if any of the religions based on the teachings of any of these people was "abrogated" by the following person that Baha'is claim were "manifestations" of God... That would mean that when Moses got his message, all other religions should have followed the new laws and teachings that God gave to the latest manifestation. I don't think so. How many people would have even known about Moses?

Next comes Krishna... The true believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob should have turned to the new revelation. They should have stopped their Sabbath and sacrificial laws and followed the new laws brought by Krishna. Which were what? I wonder? But no, they didn't. They kept following the teachings of Moses.

Then comes Zoroaster... If he lived during the later estimated time, then it wasn't long before God send the next manifestation. But what religion was being practiced in Persia at the time of Zoroaster? And who was its manifestation? Doesn't matter, because it just got abrogated... along with the teachings of Krishna and Moses.

Then comes Buddha... What new laws did Buddha bring that abrogated all the laws of Judaism, Krishna believing Hindus, and Zoroaster? Doesn't matter, because in the 1st century AD, Jesus abrogated all of them. And he brought the new and latest truth from God. And what were the profound and necessary new "social" laws that Jesus brought?

And Baha'is wonder why I'm confused by their teachings. Like you said, peace and unity are fine... but really... all the rest of this stuff is supposed to be the absolute real, updated truth from God? This is where I agree with TB... If a person is a Baha'i, all the previous religions should be shelved and never mentioned again. It just causes too much confusion trying to make sense of it all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, atheists do blame God for lots of things. The fact that they say they do not believe in God is a moot point and an attempt at obfuscation. As soon as an atheist invokes God in a dialogue with a believer they are talking about an existent entity since a nonexistent entity cannot be to blame for anything.

Let me give you an example: Some atheists say that an omnipotent-omniscient-benevolent God is would not allow so much suffering in this world, and this implies that God -- if God exists -- is to blame for suffering. However, if God does not exist God cannot be to blame for suffering or anything else anything.

Atheists have to pick a side. They either believe God exists in which case God is responsible for certain things, or they do not believe God exists, in which case God cannot be responsible for anything.

Atheists cannot have it both ways and still be logical.

So...I'm honestly not trying to be condescending here, and hope you've seen me around enough to know that's not my pattern of behaviour. Having said that, this might sound condescending and I apologize.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God, at all. Throw all the niceties away, ignore all subtlety or allowance for what no-one can know for certain, and I'd say simply that I find the concept of an intercessionary God pretty preposterous.

I can't blame God for anything. I don't blame God for anything. I said that my 17 year old incontinent dog has more agency than God to get a chuckle, but it is also 100% true in my opinion.

When a believer says how great God is, I might very well say 'then why does God allow crack babies to exist?'

That is framing the question for the believer to respond to. It does not mean I suddenly have even a single iota of belief.

Much like if I said there is no God, you might say 'Ok, let's assume we're all just accidents then...how did the human eye just evolve itself into existence without a designer...?'

Put aside religion for a moment. My professional background was in teaching. I lectured in language development at the tertiary level. I write as a hobby, and have had a short story published. I say all that just to tell you, this comment isn't about atheists vs theists...there are a lot of techniques and skills used in written communication which go beyond a simple stating of position. It's worth understanding them. Again, apologies if that sounds condescending, it's honestly not my intent.

The 20 Most Useful Rhetorical Devices

 

[Aupmanyav]

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, .."

That was Shoghi. You are enemies of the whole world other than Bahais. You are enemies of peace and brotherhood. Don't ever talk of peace and brotherhood again.

.. but what I said is that I have not been emotionally or physically connected to him for a long time.

Sorry to know that, not even emotions!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Moses flourished 14th–13th century bce
Krishna was born at midnight of 17/18 June 3229 BCE (gregorian calendar)
Zoroaster sometime between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE.
Buddha probably lived from about 450 BC to 370 BC.

Some points, CG.
1. Krishna is a mythical figure. We cannot assign any date to him (till some definite proof is found on Gujarat coast. There are a few places believed to be Krishna's Dwarikas*).
2. Buddha really did not abrogate anything from Hinduism. Even before him, there were philosophies which did not accept God or Soul (Anatta), and accepted the unreality of the observed (Anicca). He actually strengthened 'dharma' (Kala cakra).
3. Zoroaster changed the polytheistic Indo-Iranian Aryan religion into monotheism, created a new scripture (Avesta, some of the older ones incorporated are Gathas and Yasna), but that happened in Central Asia. It did not have any effect on Indian Aryans.

* 'Dwarika' (Dwar) means the door (note the similarity because of common Indo-Europian origin). door to India for ships from Gulf.

 

[Altfish]

The experts in science do not communicate to me or you directly, either, so they do not exist? They do exist but they leave it up to you and I to read what they wrote, seek the advice others, and move up through the ranks of education, so we can learn what they said in their writings.

Jesus said he will leave behind a comforter, the spirit of truth who will be with us forever. The option to speak to God is there; the Holy Spirit is part of the trinity of God. The teacher cannot reach the student, who does not seek him and wish to learn. Faith is the conduit, since God is not limited to just sensory systems like the mortals.

Science use machines to extend our senses; telescope for the eyes. God does this in a different way, that does not require machines. He needs access to the frontal lobe for a type of gold tooth connection.

Oh, but the science experts do communicate; they hold talks, lectures, do videos, publish papers, write books, all are free to attend.
God and Jesus have not communicated for 2000 years, this 'you have to seek him' is beyond me. Do you honestly believe that I haven't tried? I got christened, I went to church until I was about 15, even got confirmed.
I looked hard and then realised I was looking for something that didn't exist.

 

[CG Didymus]

Some points, CG.
1. Krishna is a mythical figure. We cannot assign any date to him (till some definite proof is found on Gujarat coast. There are a few places believed to be Krishna's Dwarikas*).
2. Buddha really did not abrogate anything from Hinduism. Even before him, there were philosophies which did not accept God or Soul (Anatta), and accepted the unreality of the observed (Anicca). He actually strengthened 'dharma' (Kala cakra).
3. Zoroaster changed the polytheistic Indo-Iranian Aryan religion into monotheism, created a new scripture (Avesta, some of the older ones incorporated are Gathas and Yasna), but that happened in Central Asia. It did not have any effect on Indian Aryans.

* 'Dwarika' (Dwar) means the door (note the similarity because of common Indo-Europian origin). door to India for ships from Gulf.

That's the kind of information that makes sense. For Baha'is to say that there was definitely a progression of manifestations from God, and each one brought new social teachings that abrogated the previous message is way too general and doesn't fit with what we know about the different religions. Unless... we don't want to know and just have a way to say that all the previous religions were true... but to also have a way to make them obsolete. But Baha'is should want to know. They should investigate on their own what is known about the beliefs and origins of the different religions, rather than just taking the word of some man that is claiming to be sent from God.

Did Krishna bring spiritual teachings from the same God that the Abrahamic religions believe in and found a religion? Was that religion Hinduism? I don't think so. In the stories about Krishna does it say that he is a manifestation or an incarnation of God? And then which God? Does it say that he taught about reincarnation? Baha'is have to change all these things about Krishna in order to make him fit into what they believe. Why? What's wrong with him being mythical? What's wrong with him being an incarnation of Vishnu? And what's wrong with him having taught about reincarnation?

It just seems like too much work to make all these religions fit into their "progressive" revelation belief.

 

[Truthseeker]

I love both you and the cats but in a different way since animals are different from humans.

I love you, and I don't love animals, not anymore. I loved my cat Softpaw who was my childhood cat. At one time I loved Softpaw more than people.

I hate being compared to Abdu'l-Baha and it is totally unfair to compare any human to him, or to expect us to be like him. It is a setup for guilt and failure. His father was a Manifestation of God so he was unlike any man, he was God's Mystery. He knew when His father died where he was going... We don't know where anyone is going, we can only believe on faith. Do you understand the difference?

I wasn't comparing you to him. No one can be like him. I agree, we don't know where anyone is going.

Nonetheless I would welcome any tests that come upon me in service to the Cause of God, but that is in no way the same as my husband dying. As I recall Shoghi Effendi grieved the loss of Abdu'l-Baha for a long time, do you think he welcomed that loss?

No, Shoghi Effendi didn't welcome that loss. Shoghi Effendi also grieved when Abdu'l-Baha's sister died. Abdu'l-Baha grieved the death of Baha'u'llah, too, because of course He missed the physical presence of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Truthseeker]

The Revelation of Muhammad did abrogate the Dispensation of Jesus.

Please note what the Guardian said:
“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it,”
God Passes By, p. 100

The Revelation of Jesus has thus been abrogated since about 632 AD.

I don't know. Perhaps he was referring to the Prophetic cycle ending, and the cycle of fulfillment starting?

XXV. It is evident that every age in which a Manifestation of God hath lived is divinely ordained, and may, in a sense, be characterized as God's appointed Day. This Day, however, is unique, and is to be distinguished from those that have preceded it. The designation "Seal of the Prophets" fully revealeth its high station. The Prophetic Cycle hath, verily, ended. The Eternal Truth is now come. He hath lifted up the Ensign of Power, and is now shedding upon the world the unclouded splendor of His Revelation.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 60)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Can you define by what you mean as "God" in this particular situation.

The one true God who created the universe.

Oh, that one! Why are we ignoring all the other ones?

 

[samtonga43]

This has nothing to do with logic.
logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
what is logic - Google Search
It is true that we have a connection, but what I said is that I have not been emotionally or physically connected to him for a long time.
connection: a relationship in which a person, thing, or idea is linked or associated with something else.
connection means - Google Search
If married people who have children get divorced they still have a connection through shared custody, but they may or may not care about each other anymore.

You said that you have no connection with your husband. But now you admit that “It is true that we have a connection”. So here you are, contradicting yourself again!
To say that people who have been married for many years and who live in the same house are not connected is just irrational. They may loathe each other, and emotional connection may be non-existent, but they are connected. I hope you see this now.

Connection: the state of being related to someone or something else.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

 

[samtonga43]

I love both you and the cats but in a different way since animals are different from humans.

This must be reassuring for Duane.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, that one! Why are we ignoring all the other ones?

No everyone is ignoring all the other ones, only us Abrahamic believers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Did Krishna bring spiritual teachings from the same God that the Abrahamic religions believe in and found a religion? Was that religion Hinduism? I don't think so. In the stories about Krishna does it say that he is a manifestation or an incarnation of God? And then which God? Does it say that he taught about reincarnation? .. What's wrong with him being mythical? What's wrong with him being an incarnation of Vishnu? And what's wrong with him having taught about reincarnation?

Krishna himself was Lord Vishnu whom many Hindus consider to be the Supreme God. Some say even Vishnu is an emanation from Krishna. No Hindu denomination considers Krishna a a messenger of any God. We do not have that kind of fabrication in Hinduism.

Gita is basically Hindu belief considered to be restated by Krishna 5,000 years ago, though the language is Sanskrit as modified by grammarian Panini (6-4th Century BCE). Gita is a book which developed over time. It has many view points put in by different people. In some verses it is thoroughly represents 'Advaita', in others, it thoroughly represents 'Bhakti' or 'Karma' (Action). So, everyone finds something of his/her liking in it, even a strong atheist like me. Yes, it mentions Krishna as a reincarnation of God in human form, restates the general Hindu view about reincarnation. No new revelation, what it says was already known to Hindus.

That Gita or Vedas are considered God's word, is a way to show respect the wisdom contained in them (very much like considering Buddha as an avatara of Lord Vishnu), rather than taking them literally as the words of any God.

 

[samtonga43]

samtonga43 said: ↑
Did you not say that you would like to burn the Bible? Have you changed your mind?

Yes, I have changed my mind. As I said to @Truthseeker I think the Bible should be put on the shelf where it belongs. The Bible was written for another age in history so it does not apply to the age in which we are living. We are no longer living in the Dispensation of Jesus, we are living in the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah. The Dispensation of Jesus was abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. God is now ordering the affairs of the world through Baha'u'llah, not through Jesus.

I’m glad you have changed your mind about burning the Bible; burning books is never a good idea. But perhaps you want to ‘put it on the shelf’ so you won’t have to read the Truth….

We will be living in the ‘Dispensation of Jesus’ forever, because He is the Second Person of the Trinity. No one, not even MrB, can abrogate God. The triune God is eternal. Not tied to time and ages; no beginning. He is not bound by time; He has no beginning. It is completely illogical to connect Him to a succession of moments, or a succession of ‘ages’.

 

[samtonga43]

@lewisnotmiller said that atheists don't blame God for anything and I told him almost all atheists I know blame God for everything that is bad in this world, everything they don't like. The evidence is readily available as it is plastered all over this forum.

No it is not. You, Tb, see what you want to see. The atheists here are arguing against theistic beliefs, not God. How can they argue against something which has no existence? I liked this:

When a believer says how great God is, I might very well say 'then why does God allow crack babies to exist?'
That is framing the question for the believer to respond to. It does not mean I suddenly have even a single iota of belief.

 

[CG Didymus]

Krishna himself was Lord Vishnu whom many Hindus consider to be the Supreme God. Some say even Vishnu is an emanation from Krishna. No Hindu denomination considers Krishna a a messenger of any God. We do not have that kind of fabrication in Hinduism.

Gita is basically Hindu belief considered to be restated by Krishna 5,000 years ago, though the language is Sanskrit as modified by grammarian Panini (6-4th Century BCE). Gita is a book which developed over time. It has many view points put in by different people. In some verses it is thoroughly represents 'Advaita', in others, it thoroughly represents 'Bhakti' or 'Karma' (Action). So, everyone finds something of his/her liking in it, even a strong atheist like me. Yes, it mentions Krishna as a reincarnation of God in human form, restates the general Hindu view about reincarnation. No new revelation, what it says was already known to Hindus.

That Gita or Vedas are considered God's word, is a way to show respect the wisdom contained in them (very much like considering Buddha as an avatara of Lord Vishnu), rather than taking them literally as the words of any God.

Baha'is could have said all have some truth in them, but contain man made ideas that aren't true. And they almost say that. But they switch it around and claim that "originally" all religions, that is, all true religions were revealed by God to a manifestation. But over time man-made traditions and misinterpretations of the manifestation's original teachings crept in.

By doing that... they make all the other religions false. Because they don't believe any of them have or are practicing and following the original teachings of their manifestation. With Hinduism it's even worse. Unless a person is following a sect that believes in Krishna, they have no Baha'i authorized manifestation. So, I wonder, where do Baha'is think those spiritual teachings of the other Hindu sects came from? It's like what they do with the Sikhs. They don't talk about them. For me, the Baha'i Faith doesn't answer enough. They leave way too many loose ends.

 

[John53]

Yes, atheists do blame God for lots of things. The fact that they say they do not believe in God is a moot point and an attempt at obfuscation. As soon as an atheist invokes God in a dialogue with a believer they are talking about an existent entity since a nonexistent entity cannot be to blame for anything.

Let me give you an example: Some atheists say that an omnipotent-omniscient-benevolent God is would not allow so much suffering in this world, and this implies that God -- if God exists -- is to blame for suffering. However, if God does not exist God cannot be to blame for suffering or anything else anything.

Atheists have to pick a side. They either believe God exists in which case God is responsible for certain things, or they do not believe God exists, in which case God cannot be responsible for anything.

Atheists cannot have it both ways and still be logical.

You contradict yourself multiple times in that post.

 

[ppp]

Yes, atheists do blame God for lots of things. The fact that they say they do not believe in God is a moot point and an attempt at obfuscation. As soon as an atheist invokes God in a dialogue with a believer they are talking about an existent entity since a nonexistent entity cannot be to blame for anything.

Throughout high school and college I did a lot of textual criticism, which included the criticisms of characters and their motives within the context of the story presented. By your reasoning, every time I (or anyone else) criticizes a literary character in a dialogue we are claiming that entity actually exists. That's just silly.